_25_11_2024_15_40_33.jpg)
_25_11_2024_15_40_55.jpg)
_25_11_2024_15_43_24.jpg)
|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> Student Fes in Britain |
|
| Tue, 14 Dec 2010, 06:15 | |
Cower
|
As an anarchist and head-in-car-door-slammist, I will break your car's windows.
|
| Tue, 14 Dec 2010, 15:40 | |
Scherererer
|
I'm not trying to create class differences, I'm just saying that there are lots of jobs that need to be filled, and so not everybody needs to get a 4-year degree from a university, as there are lots of alternatives to living your life. I'm speaking from the angle that, a lot of people look down on those who don't go to universities to get a bachelors degree. I feel like this stigma is wrong, and that people should be accepted based on whatever free choice that they make. -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Tue, 14 Dec 2010, 17:26 | |
HoboBen
|
Scherererer is right; in the UK the old polytechnics are replaced with Unis and the *honest* apprenticeship programs where you get paid more than £1/hr and actually get a job at the end are very rare. There are many instances where a degree isn't totally necessary, but the alternatives are gone. A job isn't, or shouldn't be, the be-all-and-end-all through; even if a full three-year uni degree isn't necessary for many jobs, I'd fully support anyone who wanted one for the education and experience alone, not to mention increased flexibility with future career choices. And it's terrible that in England for many the opportunity won't exist. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Wed, 15 Dec 2010, 04:28 | |
Afr0
|
 I'm speaking from the angle that, a lot of people look down on those who don't go to universities to get a bachelors degree. I feel like this stigma is wrong, and that people should be accepted based on whatever free choice that they make. There is another angle to this. Alot of people, especially rich people or would-be/wannabe rich people look down upon those people who don't go to universities to get a bachelor's degree, in terms of not feeling that they're deserving of the same amount of happiness in life, the same kind of opportunities etc. I feel this is totally wrong. I feel that the ones who actually get a degree and 'make it big' should be forced to share their wealth with the rest of society, mostly through taxes, so that everyone can go to the hospital when they need it, get unemployment payment if they need it, get sick-leave payment if they need it and so on. Taxes also contribute to more common goods such as good roads and environmental policies. Obviously those who make less should pay their taxes too, but generally higher taxes are better than lower taxes. Also things like buying gasoline for your car should have very high taxes because it's environmentally unfriendly. In the end, it all comes down to being socially responsible. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 16 Dec 2010, 12:10 | |
Stealth
|
Afr0 There is another angle to this. Alot of people, especially rich people or would-be/wannabe rich people look down upon those people who don't go to universities to get a bachelor's degree, in terms of not feeling that they're deserving of the same amount of happiness in life, the same kind of opportunities etc.I would disagree. I think this is what everyone thinks the rich people think. I know a few people who have a lot of money (and one person who is a multimillionaire). They are all very nice people and don't look down upon people under them. It's sad that the people under them look so negatively back up at them. This may be where some of the conflict exists. Think about it like this, are you a nice person? Would the people starving in Africa think you were arrogant and snobby? Most likely. It's not that you don't want them to be doing better, you just can't solve every problem out there. Really, the middle class isn't doing so bad and rich people focus a lot of time donating to the truly unfortunate who are starving, homeless, and so on. Some of the richest people in America have pledged to donate half or more of their wealth to good causes like this. Afr0 I feel this is totally wrong. I feel that the ones who actually get a degree and 'make it big' should be forced to share their wealth with the rest of society, mostly through taxes, so that everyone can go to the hospital when they need it, get unemployment payment if they need it, get sick-leave payment if they need it and so on.This is kind of the case now. The rich pay the majority of the taxes while poor people pay almost nothing. Unemployment and sick-leave in the United States is paid for by the employeer. I do agree that the government needs to provide a minimum living standard that everyone can access (paid for by taxes), but the majority of the problems in government have nothing to do with rich people. It's mostly the idiots we elect in to office who have their own agendas. Afr0 Also things like buying gasoline for your car should have very high taxes because it's environmentally unfriendly.This is also the case in the United States. We tax fuel quite a bit. I'm sure they could go higher, but that would make fuel too expensive to afford (which is really bad for the poor). -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Thu, 16 Dec 2010, 12:35 | |
|
Afr0
|
This is kind of the case now. The rich pay the majority of the taxes while poor people pay almost nothing. Unemployment and sick-leave in the United States is paid for by the employeer. Then things are as they should be. In Norway the government helps pay for sick-leave after a certain amount of time. Should have been that way in the US too. It's mostly the idiots we elect in to office who have their own agendas.Obama isn't the saviour of the universe, but he'd be much better off if the tea-parties (Sarah Palin) and the GOP weren't trying to put sticks and stones in his way all the time. For instance he had to give up on alot of the neat innovations he had in mind for the new healthcare system because of the GOP. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 16 Dec 2010, 12:47 | |
|
Afr0
|
Just to clarify; I'm not saying rich people should pay more than everyone else. I'm just saying that, percentagewise, they should pay as much as everyone else, even if that amounts to more money. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Thu, 16 Dec 2010, 13:05 | |
|
Stealth
|
Obama isn't the saviour of the universe, but he'd be much better off if the tea-parties (Sarah Palin) and the GOP weren't trying to put sticks and stones in his way all the time. For instance he had to give up on alot of the neat innovations he had in mind for the new healthcare system because of the GOP. I was never really slamming Obama. The GOP has lost their fucking mind in a lot of areas. I would much rather prefer Obama be in office than any of the crazy republican people. The people I am really slamming are congress. They are the ones who pass the laws. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them are corrupt, take handouts from businesses, push their own ideals, and fuck shit up. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Tue, 21 Dec 2010, 16:28 | |
|
Scherererer
|
Afr0 Just to clarify; I'm not saying rich people should pay more than everyone else.I'm just saying that, percentagewise, they should pay as much as everyone else, even if that amounts to more money. Actually, percentage wise, they pay well more than everyone else. Individuals in the highest tax bracket in the US can pay as much as 35% of their yearly income in taxes, whereas in the lowest brackets (< $8,375 annually) individuals will pay only 10%, unless if they are below a certain threshold in which case they pay no taxes. -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Tue, 21 Dec 2010, 20:35 | |
|
Stealth
|
Individuals in the highest tax bracket in the US can pay as much as 35% of their yearly income in taxes Living rich also has a lot of luxury taxes. They can get taxed upwards of 50% to 60% of their income. Not exactly fair at all. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 03:58 | |
|
Afr0
|
Living rich also has a lot of luxury taxes. They can get taxed upwards of 50% to 60% of their income. Not exactly fair at all. Living rich should come with some luxury taxes though. Such as flying private jets and importing Cuban cigars (IIRC that is illegal, but rich people still do it). Also when it comes to taxing car fuel, America is in a really bad disposition. Because your public transport system sucks (this is not something I know for a fact, but I've heard it from pretty much every American I've ever talked to, as well as from Norwegians who have been to the US (myself included ^^), so I'm assuming there must be *something* to it) so everyone are forced to drive. In Norway not everyone can afford to keep a car (because of taxes and insurance), let alone pay for gasoline (which is taxed much, much higher than in the US). But it doesn't matter, because we have a public transport system that actually works. Even outside of major cities, there will usually be a bus taking you where you need to go. Or even a train (not subway, there's only one city in Norway with a subway network). -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 05:05 | |
JL235
|
Afr0 Actually I believe the US is the only country with a trade embargo which bans Cuban Cigars. At the very least they are freely available across the border from the US in both Canada and Mexico, as well as across Europe (including the UK).
importing Cuban cigars |
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 07:09 | |
|
Afr0 |
Yeah well I was mostly thinking about the US! 
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 07:36 | |
|
Scherererer
|
Afr0, flying private jets is an extremely costly venture in and of itself. I don't think you realize just how rich some of these people are. People aren't allowed to just smoke Cuban cigars, they have to get them illegally. Because they are illegal, there is no taxes on them (again, because they are BANNED). Americans like driving cars. Honestly we talk a lot about improving public transit, but frankly most Americans you ask will say that they wouldn't want to give up the convenience of a car. Especially since a lot of cities just aren't laid out for such a transit system. For instance, in Florida, we're only a few feet above sea level, which means there is no chance for a subway system. That leaves buses and trains. Inner-city trains are out because that would require stripping out other important things/tearing down buildings. Then you're down to buses, which are already in place. However, nobody wants to give up their car for a bus. These kinds of transit systems work great in densely populated city centers. Don't get me wrong, we have quite a few of those; New York, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Houston,... However most of the other cities are not dense. In Florida for instance, we have some of the highest population cities in the US, however they are so spread out, they're also the largest cities. But you won't find any huge towers, you'll find miles and miles of houses. Are you going to have a bus go to each and every house in the suburbs? Did you know that the bus system is only able to make up about 12-18% of their operating cost from revenue? Trains do a bit better, making up 60-75% of their costs. -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 08:14 | |
|
JL235
|
Schererer Much of Hong Kong is only a few feet above sea level whilst much of their train system runs underground (including underneath Hong Kong harbour). I don't know if any of it goes underground, but I'd also put forward Tokyo as another example of a city close to water with an excellent inter-city train network.For instance, in Florida, we're only a few feet above sea level, which means there is no chance for a subway system.In Hong Kong the transport system is excellent. Truly excellent to the point where driving is less comfortable, more hassle, more expensive and can even take much longer. Plus it also means you need to drive it home (so you can't simply go out and get wasted after work). I used to know several people in Hong Kong who only ever drove their cars if they were going out into areasa where the transport system wasn't as well built. However the system was so good because Hong Kong is so heavily urbanised. I buy the argument that people in London and in the US prefer the convenience of the car, but only because the transit systems are good but not good enough. If the system is good enough then people are willing to switch to a public transport. |
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 08:36 | |
|
Afr0
|
If the system is good enough then people are willing to switch to a public transport. Agreed. Are you going to have a bus go to each and every house in the suburbs?No. It's all about having enough busstops (not stations, there's a difference) that are strategically placed. Where I live the county can no longer afford a separate schoolbus for schoolkids. You'd think that'd be a disaster, but in reality it just means they take the regular bus. It's a bit annoying because that particular time of day when they end school the bus is always full, but it works. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 08:38 | |
|
Afr0
|
People aren't allowed to just smoke Cuban cigars, they have to get them illegally. Because they are illegal, there is no taxes on them (again, because they are BANNED). If they weren't banned, there could be a tax on them! Then you're down to buses, which are already in place. However, nobody wants to give up their car for a bus.I'm sure nobody *wants* to give up their car, but if they can't afford to keep it, they have to! And quite frankly I don't see the problem with that if the public transportation system is in order. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 08:53 | |
|
Stealth
|
Afr0 I'm sure nobody *wants* to give up their car, but if they can't afford to keep it, they have to!And quite frankly I don't see the problem with that if the public transportation system is in order. We can afford cars in America because we don't tax the crap out of them. Even the poor can. I'd say cars are superior to busses because they are less harsh on the environment and they can take you anywhere you want to go (not just routes the bus take). We'd probably have more busses if cars were less popular, but it remains that people prefer owning their own cars. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 09:22 | |
|
Afr0
|
I'd say cars are superior to busses because they are less harsh on the environment and they can take you anywhere you want to go (not just routes the bus take). What?! That's bullshit. Buses are far more environmentally safe than cars, especially given the fact that alot of cars are just half-full anyways. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 10:23 | |
|
JL235
|
I'd like to reiterate again that Hong Kong's transport system was only so awesome because it was so urbanised. It is also at the point where it works against car owners. Even if you have an underground car park in your building, it can actually work out being not much shorter or even further then the nearest train station. Parking in Central could also cost as much as HK$5,000 per month, that's about £480 (although most is _much_ cheaper, but it shows that parking spaces can be seen as a premium in HK). In regards to busses, if they are well stocked with passengers then they are far more economical then cars. |
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 10:46 | |
|
Stealth
|
Afr0 Buses are far more environmentally safe than cars, especially given the fact that alot of cars are just half-full anyways.Cars are extremely fuel efficient these days. Busses are huge, run on diesel (particularly bad for the environment), and are rarely filled to capacity (depends on location). Busses also drive excessively on "routes" whereas cars drive directly to the destination. Doing research in to it will reveil some interesting results. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
|
| Wed, 22 Dec 2010, 12:32 | |
|
Afr0
|
are rarely filled to capacity Neither are cars. Doesn't take more than 4 passengers to outweigh an average car. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||